Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Talking about ignoring facts, you are choosing to ignore the fact that average incomes are down to their lowest since the early 90s. You can add all the jobs you want, but when pay is so incredibly low, something is wrong.
And besides all of that, its not like Obama created any jobs other than some government jobs.
Pay for the middle class has been on a downward slide since the 70s, is this somehow a new thing for you that you didn't know about? I have been saying for a long time now we need to increase the minimum wage and attract higher paying jobs to the country while taxing companies that send jobs overseas....now the question is, would Congress ever do anything like that or are they gonna continue to sit on their hands and do nothing? My money is on the hand sitting.
Pay for the middle class has been on a downward slide since the 70s, is this somehow a new thing for you that you didn't know about? I have been saying for a long time now we need to increase the minimum wage and attract higher paying jobs to the country while taxing companies that send jobs overseas....now the question is, would Congress ever do anything like that or are they gonna continue to sit on their hands and do nothing? My money is on the hand sitting.
According to this chart with data from the US Census Bureau, household income adjusted for inflation has fallen each year since 2008, and the last time it was this low was 1995.
Raising minimum wage is only going to either make products/services more expensive and/or even further limit companies from hiring new people, or possibly lay off more people.
They want a one term president so of course they are gonna ignore the facts that the economy is getting better. After all, the Republicans did make their number one priority was getting rid of Obama, not put Americans back to work....talk about a very selfish party that I enjoy seeing lose on election nights.
That statement by a republican was made almost two years into his failed presidency when it became obvious that he needed to be ousted to turn the economy around.
Well, when you count mowing a lawn for 10 bucks full employment, I would say that the game is rigged.
Considering many Republicans including Mitt want to do away with the minimum wage and work place regulations, $10 an hour is going to look like a lot of money in four years, should he get elected.
Considering many Republicans including Mitt want to do away with the minimum wage and work place regulations, $10 an hour is going to look like a lot of money in four years, should he get elected.
There is plenty of research and economic theory out there showing that artificially setting a minimum wage is bad for many reasons.
Anything in the sevens is poor by US standards. It may be ok for Europe, but not for us. After the dot com crash our UE in Washington state was in the sevens and we thought it was a crisis. Four years after the housing crash UE is in the sevens--it's still a crisis.
According to this chart with data from the US Census Bureau, household income adjusted for inflation has fallen each year since 2008, and the last time it was this low was 1995.
Raising minimum wage is only going to either make products/services more expensive and/or even further limit companies from hiring new people, or possibly lay off more people.
That is actually a myth, there has been little proof that raising the minimum wage has had any effect on employment because most places already pay higher than minimum wage. Minimum wage should be set based off state by state needs because each state has a different level for what classifies middle income. If you have incomes set to the lower end of the middle class, you then have those people added to the middle class, you have less people dependent on the government for assistance....unless you are saying you want more people dependent on the government?
Actually based on the link you posted, incomes have been falling since Bush took office....maybe it is time to return to Clinton era policies, that seemed to have the best effect on this country.
That statement by a republican was made almost two years into his failed presidency when it became obvious that he needed to be ousted to turn the economy around.
That is an excuse, the Republicans don't need the president to turn the economy around, they have the ability to write bills and work together to create jobs, if the Republicans cared about jobs they would of worked with the Democrats to get jobs bills passed, but instead they are only concerned with making Obama a one term president and to do that they need the economy to stay bad.
That is actually a myth, there has been little proof that raising the minimum wage has had any effect on employment because most places already pay higher than minimum wage. Minimum wage should be set based off state by state needs because each state has a different level for what classifies middle income. If you have incomes set to the lower end of the middle class, you then have those people added to the middle class, you have less people dependent on the government for assistance....unless you are saying you want more people dependent on the government?
Actually based on the link you posted, incomes have been falling since Bush took office....maybe it is time to return to Clinton era policies, that seemed to have the best effect on this country.
So two things:
1) Assuming you are correct (which I don't buy without some sort of link and proof) that "most" places pay higher than minimum wage, why do you need to reset the minimum bar. Clearly people are paying what they view labor to be worth to them if they have exceeded the legal minimum.
2) How in the world do you think it is fair that a private employer be required to subsidize a certain quality of life for their employee if that employee is not returning an equal or grater value to that employers business? They are employers and business owners, not charities.
The latter half of those income gains were most likely related to the internet boom, and regardless of what Al Gore says, he didn't create the internet, so he and Clinton don't get credit for the increase in incomes. In fact no president deserves credit for it to tell you the truth. Private industry created those jobs and incomes at those levels...then they proceeded to over inflate, run the companies into the ground, and set the stage for Internet 2.0 which was better managed in terms of growth and valuation. It was all built off the cheap equipment and highly available labor of the crash...had Bush and Obama let the auto companies take the same route, maybe we would be in a similar situation with manufacturing these days, but instead they artificially prop up a failing business model, limit innovation and cause all kinds of problems.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
